FROM THEWILDERNESS

A Nonpartisan, Non-sectarian, MAP from the Here That Is,Into the Tomorrow of Our Own Making

$50.00 per year$50.00 per year $6.00 US

Vol. V, No. 5 August 27, 2002

© Copyright 2001, 2002, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications,www.copvcia.com. [All Rights Reserved. Please see page 2 for Reprint Policy]

—SPECIAL EDITION—

Page -1-

NO WAY OUTAlmost a year after Sept. 11 where are we? In the last year the Bush Administration and the financial,

economic and oil interests which it serves, have proved their continued ability to move forward into totalitarianism and naked aggression faster than any forces of either domestic or international opposition could organize -- either behind them or in front of them. Optimistic and valiant, but inexperienced efforts to fight the juggernaut have started, swirled, eddied and drifted as the Blitzkrieg war that “will not end in our lifetimes” has not even so much as looked sideways. Overwhelming evidence of the regime’s crimes in a dozen arenas has been brought to the surface, and yet each new revelation only spurs the Empire to accelerate its long-conceived plans rather than slow down.

As FTW predicted in May 2001 with Citigroup’s overt purchase of known drug money laundering institution FTW predicted in May 2001 with Citigroup’s overt purchase of known drug money laundering institution FTWBanamex -- and its placement of the bank’s owner, Roberto Hernandez, on the board of directors with former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former CIA director John Deutch -- the criminality of the economic elites has been so overt as to seem careless about what they did, and who saw it. That was four months before 9-11.

The middle path between optimism and pessimism is realism. And the fact is that nothing has appeared in the form of any organized effort which, based upon past experience, offers any likelihood of success in challenging the Bush Administration or those who direct it. It is the past experience issue that is so diligently ignored by those newly awakened voices of opposition who expend needless energy debating whether explosives were placed in the towers, whether the planes were remote controlled, whether an airliner really hit the Pentagon, or whether maybe Congress will actually do something about any of it. These debates are worse than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They are expediting the demise of people who could otherwise be constructing life rafts. The proof already exists that the government lied.

When I was a young policeman I responded to a dead body call. The victim was a fresh victim of a homicide and his throat had been slashed so badly that his head was nearly decapitated. This was new to me, horrifying. I knelt and started to take a pulse and my training officer stopped me. He said, “When you see someone with their head cut off, it is not necessary to take a pulse.” I responded that my training in the Los Angeles police academy had said that you should do this on a dead body call. He said, “When you have a dead body like this and someone seriously asks you whether you took their pulse or not, arrest them for 5150.” Section 5150 of the California Health and Safety Code covers persons who are mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others.(continued on page 19)

Page -

TABLE of CONTENTS

No Way Out................................................................... 1

COLUMN: Is The Empire About Oil? ............................ 2

ANALYSIS: The Infinite War and Its Roots.................... 3

One Foot Off The Cliff: Troop Deployment ................... 9

Saudi Arabia: The Sarajevo of the 21st Century......... 13

9-11 Lawsuits: Saudis, Airlines, Bush Face Litigation .... 16

ANALYSIS: Between Iraq and A Hard Place............... 18

REPRINT POLICY

Any story, originally published in From The Wilderness, more than thirty days old may be reprinted in its entirety, non-commercially, if, and only if, the author’s name remains attached and the following statement appears:

“Reprinted with permission, Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com, P.O. Box 6061-350, Sherman Oaks, CA, 91413. 818-788-8791. FTW is published monthly, annual subscriptions are $50 per year.”

THIS WAIVER DOES NOT APPLY TO PUBLICATION OF NEW BOOKS.

For reprint permission for “for profi t” publication, please contact Mike Ruppert. For Terms and Conditions on subscrip-tions and the From The Wilderness website, please see our website at: www.fromthewilderness.com

From The WildernessMichael C. Ruppert

Publisher/Editor

Contributing Editor--------------- Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D.Contributing Editor – Energy ---------- Dale Allen PfeifferStaff Writer------------------------------ Michael DavidsonCanadian Correspondent------------------ Greta KnutzenStaff Writer/Copy Editor -----------------------Joe TaglieriOffice of Public Affairs---------------------- Michael Leon

From The Wilderness is published eleven times annually. Subscriptions are $50 (US) for 12 issues.

From The WildernessP.O. Box 6061- 350 Sherman Oaks, CA 91413

www.copvcia.come-mail – editorial: mruppert@copvcia.com

e-mail – subscriptions and customer service:service@copvcia.com

(818) 788-8791 * (818) 981-2847 fax

Seeking Understanding About 9-11Seeking Understanding About 9-11

COLUMN: IS THE EMPIRE ABOUT OIL?

A Response to the Naysayers

by Dale Allen Pfeiffer,FTW Contributing Editor for EnergyFTW Contributing Editor for EnergyFTW

[Recently a schism has revealed itself within the community of activists seeking real answers about the events of 9-11 and since. Some critics, like Jared Israel of the Emperor’s Clothes, have taken to personal and public attacks on those who are steadfastly attempting to raise public awareness that the planet is running out of oil and the consequences may be devastating. This scenario, based upon the so-called “Hubbert Peak” of oil production, constitutes significant part of a credible canvass upon which many other motives for “a war that will not end in our lifetimes” can be painted. FTW’s Dale Allen Pfeiffer now responds to Mr. Israel and those who are drawing attention away from the obvious.

We note the irony in a recent statement made by the new Afghan Ambassador to Washington, Ishaq Shahryar, who was the subject of a July 7 Los Angeles Times story which said, “Already the U.S. Geological Survey is mapping out Afghanistan’s extensive natural resources and so many businessmen are pouring into Kabul it is reminiscent of the California Gold Rush, Shahryar said.” The irony lies in the fact that Shahryar, who gave up his U.S. citizenship to become Ambassador, was a pioneer of solar energy research in the 1970s and '80s. – MCR, Aug. 6, 2002]

Aug. 8, 2002, 16:30 PDT (FTW) -- I have refrained from entering into the oil vs. containment debate because I felt that an argument about motive would detract from the focus upon U.S. government culpability in the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terrorism." However, I cannot hold my tongue now that it has been implied war-for-oil proponents are all “a loyal opposition set up to control the alternative narrative and keep people distracted,” according to one critic. As a testimony to my own unremitting opposition to the government and the elite it serves, I refer the reader to a piece I wrote titled “My Country Tis of Thee.” This article is a scalding indictment demonstrating that the U.S. government has never been about the values of democracy and human rights, and the myth of the U.S. is very far from the truth. I am nobody's puppet. (See http://www.angelfire.com/http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/empowerment/mycountry.htmlmi3/empowerment/mycountry.html)(continued on page 7)

2-

Page -3-

AnalysisAnalysis

THE INFINITE WAR AND ITS ROOTSby Stan Goff

Aug. 27, 2002, 12:00 PDT (FTW) -- Most of the polemical resistance to the so-called “War on Terrorism” has thus far been based on ethics and morality. And the moral dimension of the war is important. But we must take a more critical look at this war, at what is motivating the war, and what are the likely outcomes. While we can mount moral resistance to the war, if we fail to critically engage the real causes of it, we cannot mount an effective political resistance, which has to be an effective response to the motive forces behind the war.

Here we will emphasize the dynamic between an American ruling class and its governing junta -- which has seized power and is in many ways out of control -- in an adverse historical circumstance that is not likely correctable, and cannot, therefore, guarantee the survival of U.S. imperialism. We have to study this dynamic concretely to understand it.

It is important at the outset not to think of big business (sometimes referred to as “capital”) as broken into discrete sectors, each sector with its own static base and ideology. The concept of capital as broken into static sectors, while it may be useful for a short time to conduct a transient analysis, is fundamentally mechanical. Capital is a dynamic and cyclical process of accumulation via valorization1 and systemic reproduction. It has to stabilize and reproduce itself as a system, yet it also has to “grow.” This simultaneous need for equilibrium and disequilibrium is one of the central paradoxes of imperialism. Total capital at any moment is a set sum of money, for the sake of argument, but it is in flux, changing forms throughout the production/reproduction process, first productive capital, then goods and services, then redistributed through interests and rents, then finance capital, etc.

Capital has a temporal nature. In this process, the system bosses, CEOs, etc., are like an acting troupe, the members of which keep changing roles. The notion that they are divided into sectors, then, is illusory, because no fraction of capital exists independently in any sector. A crisis of accumulation2 is not a discrete crisis limited to one “sector” of capital. It is general. And the higher the degree of international integration and rationalization of the capitalist class, especially in a technically complex interdependency, the more generalized are the accumulation crises. Anything affecting one “sector” necessarily affects all “sectors.”

We cannot know every aspect of this dialectic, but we can focus on some key aspects of it, bearing in mind the limitations of this focus, that I think will shed some light on our situation. So I will focus on oil, on currency, and on the evolving role and dilemma of the U.S. military. While we can certainly acknowledge that currency and the military are constants in the abstract and not a sector of capital, oil at first blush appears to be a definite sector. But this, too, is illusory. Oil is not a separate sector, first for the reasons cited above, but also because oil is no mere commodity.

Oil is the form of a deeper cycle of material reality than that on which radical theorists concentrated in the abstract with relation to the commodity and the vast social architecture they unfold from that enigma. It is the embodiment of inescapable physical laws related to energy and matter, and those are the laws, in conjunction with the laws of social motion, that we are bumping up against, not just as a society but as a species. Oil is a form of super-concentrated energy, originating as solar energy that formed over hundreds of millions of years in unique biological and geological conditions that cannot be replicated. Our species has used over half of the recoverable oil in approximately 100 years.

World oil production is probably peaking right now3, even as population continues to increase and the demands of a crumbling world economic infrastructure continue apace. Two factors might provide a transient reprieve from this event. First, technological advances like 3-D seismic enhanced recovery, nuclear-magnetic resonance techniques, horizontal drilling, and so forth, and second, a worldwide depression, which would radically decrease demand.4 It is not difficult to imagine some of the long-term consequences of the end of cheap oil, even using the input-output models of the neo-Malthusians.5 (Thomas Malthus [1766-1834] was an English economist who became famous through his book, “Essay on Population.” He claimed that population increased faster than the means of human subsistence. Facts contradict this, and show that a niche must be opened in order to be filled. The neo-Malthusians have altered Malthus’ concept somewhat, by claiming that population will “overshoot” as means of subsistence, like arable land, water, and fossil fuels, are depleted. There appears to be some validity to this. But their model is based on simple input-output calculations that assume a human population trajectory based on a static list of variables, with no account for the characteristics of social systems. It implies, therefore, a kind of genetic determinism that can easily devolve into racism.)

But we must take into account the social relations of energy, and value-theory.6 It is not the finite physical limit of oil that matters right now. It matters what is finite in the context of what is economically essential. Does oil have any perfect substitutes? At this conjuncture, the answer is an unequivocal “no.” What is the value of oil in terms of embodied socially-necessary labor-time? In other words, can the value of oil rise fast enough for the whole economy to be contained? The answer to that is an unequivocal “yes.”

Page -4-

Oil has no perfect substitute. Neither solar cell, nor coal, nor plutonium can run trucks or airplanes. There are theoretical substitutes, but not one shows any promise in the near term of even being developed. It is the lifeblood of the entire global capitalist system, and has been for 100 years. If oil prices go beyond a very operational price of no return, so to speak, the economy will most certainly be contained, very likely to the point of collapse.7 Imagine the consequences today, for example, if oil prices jumped a mere 50 percent. But if best predictions are correct, and we are entering the era of post-peak production, a steady and accelerating increase in the price of oil is inevitable, and soon.

So capitalism itself, utterly dependent on this single finite substance, is faced with a very real and very threatening energy crisis. Progressive (as in gradual) change is now producing an abrupt step-change. We may not perceive it as such yet, because U.S. capitalists are very adept at commodifying the mass-intellect, and making its assertions appear both upright and noble, as we can see in the ubiquitous display of American flags.

Every oil shock since 1973 has corresponded to or promptly followed a war. To understand why, we have to account for the concrete and current structure of the world capitalist system.

The U.S. is now unarguably hegemonic. U.S. armed forces control every major sea lane, and it has ringed the world with military bases8. U.S. forces are the international police of the Gulf States, where, by the way, imperialist oil corporations extract the oil and pay rents to client regimes.

Those rents have to be sufficient to keep domestic populations from becoming restive, and to continually restore their capital base. A barrel of oil costing between $25 and $30 is enough to keep the principal Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) states calm (as this is written, however, there is a dollar devaluation in progress), even as it strains those non-OPEC states whose recovery costs are higher than, say, Saudi Arabia or pre-invasion Iraq.9

The U.S. pays below a market price for oil for at least three reasons. One is that the U.S. has offered F-16 fighter jets, Stinger missiles, and so on to those client regimes, as well as capitalizing their oil extraction. Two is that the U.S. has through a number of stratagems since the early-1970s convinced those states to invest their profits in U.S. financial instruments.10 If the Saudis attempted to take action against the U.S. economy, for example, they would ruin themselves, since they have invested the majority of their assets in U.S. securities. Three is that the U.S. controls the air, land, and sea lanes and is willing to deploy devastating military power into the region. So the U.S. is having its oil subsidized, in a sense, paying less than market value, as a form of imperial tribute.

It is because oil is denominated in dollars -- which I can now call “petrodollars” -- since the U.S. dropped the gold standard -- since the U.S. dropped the gold standard --and all its associated fixed currency exchange rates in 1971,11 that the U.S. has been able to dominate not only the developing world, but its key capitalist competitors. Other nations must pay their energy bills in (petro)dollars, at a higher rate than the U.S., and those dollars come right back to the homeland (via Saudi Arabia, et al) to invest in T-Bills and real estate.

In 1973 the Nixon Administration devalued the dollar, by then firmly fixed as the currency of international trade by virtue of being the petrodollar, and cleared its own debts to its European and Asian capitalist competitors. being the petrodollar, and cleared its own debts to its European and Asian capitalist competitors. being the petrodollar

American petrodollars were then cycled through American banks, which lent them to Latin Americans and Africans, still reeling from the last oil shock, who then required petrodollar loans to pay their own energy bills. Economic growth has stagnated and fallen back in Africa and Latin America ever since. This is the method by which the U.S. was able to shift the burden of its own post-Vietnam accumulation crisis onto others, and to shift the maintenance model of its hegemony from semi-fascist client regimes to “structural adjustment” debt peonage under nominally “democratic” governing bodies.

American imperialism is in the last instance petrodollar imperialism. As Latin America, Africa, and now Asia, slide over the abyss, Americans have doubled their car ownership.12 The rest of the world is, in this way, directly bearing the burden of our high cost of living.

So if this system begins to unravel, as it has begun to, and the American people see their standard of living take a sudden downturn, the U.S. political regime will face a far graver political crisis than the crisis of legitimacy that was opportunistically transcended by spinning Sept. 11.

Capital understands very clearly what is at stake, and it must take great pains to ensure that we do not understand it.But the ruling class fails to grasp the implications of “value-theory,” that is, the very laws that give capitalism its character.

The global monopolization that is taking place right now is an attempt to escape from those laws. The very fact of the current super-heated monopolization is an indication that the competitive process is exhausted. Recent revelations about the “creative accounting” scandals of major transnationals are evidence of attempts to escape those laws through massive bunko scams.

The strategic devaluation and inauguration of the neoliberal regime in the early 1970s was already a response to a generalized crisis of profits, a crisis related to the organic composition of capital, and even the petrodollar was a retrenchment. That retrenchment may now also be exhausted.

World oil consumption right now is about 75 million barrels per day. By 2010, that is expected to increase to 100 million barrels per day.13 This oil is produced by two major groups, let's say, for the purpose of analysis -- OPEC and non-OPEC (NOPEC). OPEC is largely concentrated in the Persian Gulf region. NOPEC is the North Atlantic, North America, Mexico, China, Nigeria, and so forth. That doesn't tell the whole story, though. Gulf states' oil does not peak in production until 2012, and half the world's remaining easily extractable oil is there.14 World production is peaking right now. But world production is an average. NOPEC peaked several years ago, now being in permanent decline.

So, OPEC is getting stronger, and NOPEC is getting weaker.Saudi Arabia, an OPEC nation, is the biggest pool, with Iraq next and the Caspian Sea region a theoretical third (but this

Page -5-

is very much in doubt15). The U.S. has for years been trying to ensure domination of OPEC, and they have accomplished that to some degree by ensuring the corrupt Saudis and others through those aforementioned investments. Given that OPEC production is still rising and NOPEC is in permanent irreversible decline, OPEC is regaining dominance in the overall oil market. The point at which OPEC regains definitive domination of world markets is called by some the “crossover event.”16

Best predictions are that the “crossover event” will happen around 201117. This is certainly understood by the current Bush Administration, which is heavily populated by members of the petroleum oligarchy.

Should forces hostile to U.S. imperialism (for whatever reason) gain control over the Gulf States and its oil, they would effectively control the lifeblood of the entire global economic system. U.S. hegemony would collapse in an historical instant. Compared to this scenario, Sept. 11 was a walk in the park. And the U.S. ruling class, especially the current petroligarchy administration, knows this.

Since world oil production begins to decline on average almost immediately, the U.S. as the biggest end user needs to figure out how to compensate for the losses being sustained in NOPEC production. Their solution, from what we can see now, may be to open the Caspian and accelerate extraction from the Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iraq. But the most optimistic scenarios are that all three regions combined might put out an additional 15 million barrels per day. Given that our extrapolated appetite will go up 25 million barrels per day within nine years, provided there is no economic collapse that truncates demand, the U.S. remains in a dilemma.

Compounding that dilemma is the fact that simply getting that additional oil out of the ground and to market will require an investment of an additional $1 trillion in the region by someone.18

Who will bear the burden? Colonized peoples, of course, outside and inside the U.S. via the domination of the petrodollar.

This is almost certainly the plan of the Bush junta. The perennial problem, however, is the mass of people in those nations, who are often militantly radicalized by arrogant foreign plunderers. This puts the imperialists right back on the horns of a dilemma.

The escalation of Palestinian resistance to Zionism19 and the fascist-like response of the Israelis to that resistance, constitutes a threat to the stability of the U.S. client regimes in the region, as does the declining standard of living for the masses in all the Gulf States. These regimes are corrupt and autocratic, and themselves caught in this web of dilemmas. And it is upon them that the U.S. dollar depends, and upon the seignorage of the U.S. dollar that U.S. hegemony depends.

This energy crisis, then, is now combined with a worldwide overproduction crisis, felt even in the United States. And the current administration is opting for war, a very expensive war, for the purpose of extending and consolidating that hegemony, which will further strain the U.S. domestic economy. As this is written, 48 of the 50 states are experiencing severe budget shortages, and the federal government is threatened with default.

This is a desperate move by desperate people, and so it is a dangerous period we are in.It is no wonder the capitalists of other regions are raising their eyebrows at the Bush Administration. They surely sense

the potential consequences of this administration’s wild hubris, its military adventurism, its arrogant abrogation of international treaties, its refusal to submit to international law, and its continued support for the Israeli occupation. Some of these capitalists understand that what is taking shape is the military occupation of the world’s major oil fields, in the face of fierce resistance from the masses in those states, and they further understand that this is the best way to ensure permanent loss of access to this critical commodity for good.

The Europeans may be courting the Gulf States now, alarmed and angered by the Bush overtures to Russia (which in turn makes overtures to both the U.S. and European Union, like a coy lover choosing between suitors), and the “Bushfeld” junta’s apparent attempt to restructure the geopolitical architecture to the detriment of European capital.

The U.S. Government is certainly anticipating this contingency with great anxiety. If the Saudis, for example, under the threat of domestic destabilization from ever more angry and militant masses and focused on the U.S.-Israeli nexus, decided out of self-preservation to punish the U.S., they might withdraw or liquidate all their U.S. dollar-denominated assets from the U.S. and invest them in euro-denominated assets. The only sticking point for them is the fact that U.S. companies perform the lion’s share of extraction activities. Nonetheless, if they were to expel the U.S. (a dangerous move, but these are desperate times) and contract with other nations, it would be a devastating blow to the U.S. and have the added incentive of restricting supply and raising the price per barrel, raising domestic revenues to quiet their own restless populations. This nightmare scenario for the Bush de facto Administration is surely fueling their sense of urgency to emplace more and permanent military infrastructure in the region to prepare for this contingency.

As the U.S. commits diplomatic suicide in Palestine and destabilizes Saudi Arabia, there is backroom talk within the Bush Administration of military action against Saudi Arabia.

Arab and Central Asian resistance will be Islamist. The destruction of pan-Arab nationalism and Arab socialism by imperialist forces, often with Islamists as the instrument of that destruction, has left but this one force to give voice to the misery and degradation of the masses. Our moral (and even wishful) assessment of that does not change the fact that this is true. At this point, whether the U.S. supports or opposes the Islamists is irrelevant to Arab and Muslim masses. The U.S. is still supporting Israel, the source of their greatest degradation and humiliation.

The more general economic dislocations of the coming crisis, along with the necessity (from capital's perspective) of gaining control of the diminishing but vital resource, has led to a radical rethinking of military doctrine.

Page -6-

When I was working in Special Forces, we were part of a foreign policy doctrine called Internal Defense and Development (IDAD). That was old school. As I prepared to leave the Army, there was much emphasis, doctrinally and technologically, on something called Operations Other Than War (OOTW). The process of uneven development has begun to culminate in the concentrated urbanization of much of the world's population.

In the past, capital had the capacity to "absorb" these populations who came into the city based on loss of land or the lure of jobs. There was a level of unemployment and misery maintained to "keep them hungry" and compliant, and to buffer against worker demands. But with the rapid restructuring for today's "globalization," there is far less economic "expansion." Instead of the "proletarianization" of the masses, we are seeing in many cases their "lumpenization," as many people are integrated into various criminal enterprises. With the new reality in the world's cities, and the domestic development of various politics of resistance to "globalization," two military developments have emerged.

One is the ever-closer relationship and blurring of lines between military and police. The other is the technological development of sub-lethal weapons systems and highly sophisticated population control measures for both police and military -- globalized military policing.20 This is one key component in the mad doctrine of “full spectrum dominance” championed by the feverish Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

We need only look at the Robocops that are now deployed in force for every demonstration and the reliance on tactical units for more and more "drug" arrests. Attorney General John Ashcroft is now preparing even further erosion of Posse Comitatus, the law that forbids the military from operating within the borders of the U.S. That erosion began with the growth of numerous liaisons between military and police. I myself participated in the army's training of the original FBI Hostage Rescue Team who have since become famous or infamous, as the case may be, and with both Los Angeles and Houston SWAT. The erosion also began with operations where the military actually augmented the Border Patrol inside the U.S. These contacts began in the early-1980s and have grown exponentially since.

The military doctrines being prepared for Pax Americana include doctrines for global urban civil war.This dialectical relation between energy, currency, and the military is at least one key concrete condition for us to understand

if we are to see into the mind of capital (big business and its political establishment) in this period of imperialism in crisis.It appears that the “democratic” form of imperialism at this conjuncture is coming to a close, and the mailed fist of yet

another form of fascism is a real possibility in the near term. There is no “democratic” way out of this accumulation crisis, and as this crisis floods back from the periphery to the core, capital’s assault on the U.S. working class will be sharpened, as we are seeing with Bush’s concerted attack against the debilitated American trade union movement. As in Argentina, when the inevitable tumble into severe economic polarization happens, those who count themselves “middle class” will be rapidly pauperized as the banking system closes its doors to appropriate their savings.

It is this inevitable attack on the living standards of average Americans that will either wake us to the folly of this manufactured patriotism and push us into resistance to this regime, or in the worst case, into atavistic racialism and fascism. Which it will be depends in some part on how effective some of us are at telling people in advance what they can expect...and why.

[Stan Goff retired from the U.S. Army in 1996, his last assignment being 3rd Special Forces Group. He entered military service January 1970, and his first assignment was as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. His service took him to seven more conflict areas after Vietnam, including Guatemala, Grenada, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Somalia, and Haiti. His assignments included 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 7th Special Forces, the Jungle Operations Training Center, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

He is the former Organizing Director for Democracy South and is now the Director of the North Carolina Network for Popular Democracy. He also works with the Southern Voting Rights Project of the Institute for Southern Studies. He authored a book about the 1994 U.S. military intervention in Haiti, called "Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the U.S. Invasion of Haiti" (Soft Skull Press, 2000).]

ENDNOTES

1. Valorization: In this context, we are referring to the process whereby the value added to a commodity in the production process is partly appropriated by non-working owners as profit.

2. Accumulation crisis: Systemic economic distress to capital based on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, overproduction, currency collapse, etc. All recessions are actual accumulation crises.

3. “An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves,” Albert A. Bartlett Department of Physics University of Colorado at Boulder, 80309-0390 Mathematical Geology, Vol. 32, No 1, 2000

4. “Distribution and evolution of ‘recovery factor,’” "Oil Reserves Conference," Paris, Nov. 11, 1997, International Energy Agency, Jean Laherrère, Associate consultant, Petroconsultants

5. “Energetic Limits to Growth,” Jay Hanson, ENERGY Magazine, spring 1999 6. Value theory: The interpretation of economic activity based on the “labor theory of value” pioneered by Marx and Engels, which states that

the exchange value of a commodity is fundamentally based on the abstract socially necessary labor time required to produce it. The goal of value-theory is to go beyond “supply and demand” accounts of economic behavior to an examination of the actual social relations between people that define a social system, including political relations.

Page -7-

(continued from page 2, Is The Empire About Oil?)As a scientist, I am always interested in looking at evidence that might disprove any hypothesis upon which I might be

working. In this case, I have looked at all the arguments against the oil motive and have found that none of them, separately or in total, are sufficient to disprove this hypothesis. Furthermore, the energy depletion scenario is based upon exhaustive scientific studies, which have in fact been reviled by the U.S. government, the elite, and leading economists. This is a scenario that they do not want the public to know about.

CONTAINMENT OR OILThese two motives have been posed as though they are in opposition. In fact, they are not. Neither I nor anyone else that

I am aware of has made such a statement. When a power like the U.S. government takes action, there is always a confluence of motives behind such action. I am sure that one benefit of the Balkan and Afghan wars is the establishment of a military presence curtaining Russia.

However, this does not detract from the importance of oil. In fact, should we ever reach a time when the major powers are starved of energy, then such a military curtain would be strategically essential to prevent either Russia or China from making a grab for the Middle East.

Yet there are other strategic targets that are not fully explained by the containment alone hypothesis. Why the U.S. military presence in the Philippines? Why the strong interest in Indonesia and Timor? And why the renewed interest in Somalia and Yemen? Opponents can state that the Philippines and Indonesia/Timor are necessary to contain China. But it just so happens that the Philippines dominates the oil shipping lanes from the Middle East to the U.S., and Indonesia/Timor is suspected to contain reserves of oil and natural gas.

And then there is Somalia. What strategic goal towards containment do Somalia and Yemen hold? None, yet these countries do control both sides of the Gulf of Aden and the mouth of the Red Sea, an important shipping channel for oil.

If the containment theory is weak with regard to these areas then what of South America, what of Colombia and Venezuela? The Bush Administration is quite concerned with both of these countries. In Colombia, the Bush Administration has baldly stated that it considers the FARC (the rebel resistance) to be terrorists, and the U.S. should take an active role in guarding Colombian oil pipelines. Then there was April’s attempted coup in Venezuela, and the hints from U.S. officials that President Hugo Chavez and his administration could be viewed as terrorist sympathizers.

Beyond this we have Iraq and Iran, two members of Bush's evil triumvirate. Between them, both countries hold a large portion of the remaining energy resources in the Middle East. And I am certain that the U.S. aims to take full control of these resources before the approaching decline of world oil production.

Then what of Russia and China -- if containment is a readily apparent goal, why are they not responding? Despite some ineffective saber rattling, both countries seem very eager to appease the U.S., particularly Russia. The U.S. has already made a conquest of Russia in the decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall. We have drained the country economically and have drained its labor force of the brightest and best-educated people.

Russia is now almost completely dependent on the U.S. During the Afghan war late last year, oil prices were held down

7. “The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge,” Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D., Pardee Keynote Symposia, Geological Society of America Summit 2000, Reno, Nev., Nov. 13, 2000

8. “U.S. Military Bases and Empire,” Monthly Review, Editors, March 20029. “Analysis of the IEO2001 Non-OPEC Supply Projections,” Robert D. Blanchard, Northern Kentucky University, April 9, 200110. “The Globalization Gamble: The Dollar-Wall Street Regime and its Consequences,” Peter Gowan, University of North London, Presented

to the International Working Group on Value Theory 1999 mini-conference, March 12-14, 199911. Ibid.12. “Making Better Transportation Choices,” Molly O’Meara Sheehan, State of the World 2000, The Worldwatch Institute, 200013. Bartlett, op cit.14. Duncan, op cit.15. “Forget the Caspian Bonanza,” Peter Beaumont and John Hooper, July 26, 1998, Observer (London)16. “The World Petroleum Life Cycle”, Richard C. Duncan and Walter Youngquist, Presented at the PTTC Workshop "OPEC Oil Pricing and

Independent Oil Producers", Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, Petroleum Engineering Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Oct. 22, 1998

17. Ibid.18. Beaumont and Hooper, op cit.19. Zionism: The movement founded by Theodore Herzl at the turn of the last century in response to the worldwide experience of anti-

Semitism, based on the belief in a need for a Jewish state, which the movement determined would be in Palestine. Zionism is notsynonymous with Judaism, and many Jews have opposed and still oppose Zionism. It has been based since early in its history on the explicit design to expropriate the land of others for the express purpose of a state controlled by a religiously-defined group, i.e., Jews. It is that design to base a Jewish-dominated state on the expropriated land of Palestinians that has led many to equate Zionism with racism. Being anti-Zionist is not synonymous with being anti-Semitic.not synonymous with being anti-Semitic.not

20. “The Militarization of Police,” Frank Morales, Covert Action Quarterly, spring-summer 1999

Page -8-

because Russia opened up the pumps on its own reserves. Likewise last spring, when Iraq tried to interest the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in an oil embargo against the U.S., Russia once again opened up its oil production to full throttle. This would seem to suggest that Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin have some sort of understanding.

As for China, it is sufficient to note that in the wake of 9-11, Bush quickly pressed through China's entrance into the World Trade Organization. China is supposed to be the next big pie for international corporations, yet there is a concern about China other than Communism or imperialistic greed. Along with India, China is expected to be the big growth market in demand for oil. Chinese energy demand is projected to grow so tremendously in the next decade that it could crowd the rest of the world out of the energy market. Now this is a serious threat to the U.S., both socially and economically. At present China is going along with the U.S., but the two are bound to lock horns eventually due to competing energy demand.

Does all of this sound as though containment is the premiere issue in U.S. foreign affairs?

FINALLY, THE END GAMENormally, I would not waste time and effort arguing about the motives behind the War on Terrorism -- what is most important

is that we fight against this War on Terrorism. However, there is a lot more at stake here than simply greedy imperialism. The against this War on Terrorism. However, there is a lot more at stake here than simply greedy imperialism. The againstU.S. empire and modern civilization are all made possible by oil. Without it our technology would never have grown beyond coal-based industrialism. Furthermore, there are no alternative energy sources, which, considered separately or in total, can replace oil and natural gas.

As oil and natural gas production decline, so will the economy and our technological civilization. Without oil and natural gas modern agriculture will fail, and people will starve. Without oil and natural gas, industry will grind to a halt, transportation will be grounded, and people in northern climes will freeze in the winter.

Scientist Richard Duncan has created a model that has so far gone unrefuted. His model states that technological civilization cannot outlast its resource base, particularly its energy resource base. Once this resource base is exhausted, technological civilization will be forever beyond the grasp of life on a particular planet. Duncan makes his model readily available to anyone who wishes to test it in the hope that someone will be able to successfully refute the model. To date, no one has done so. (See “The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to Olduvai Gorge” http://dieoff.com/page224.htmhttp://dieoff.com/page224.htm)

You see, there is a lot more at stake here than just a continuation of the Cold War or U.S. imperialistic greed. There is enough energy remaining in the world right now for us -- the people -- to take control and ease ourselves into a democratic, egalitarian, stable-state society. Or there is enough energy for the elite to build a feudalistic, fascist, police state with themselves at the top. This is the choice facing us right now, and this is what is truly at stake.

RISK MANAGEMENTOkay, opponents can put out powerful arguments favoring the containment theory and disparaging energy depletion, and

I can put out powerful arguments favoring energy depletion and disparaging containment. Only time will tell definitively who is right. But we do not have to wait for time to tell us which side of the argument is correct. What we can do is choose right now which theory would be most beneficial to act upon. All we need to do is an exercise in risk management.

Without arguing about who is right, let's simply look at the results if we take the containment theory to be correct, and it turns out to be wrong. Then let us do the same with the energy depletion theory.

If we proceed on the assumption that the War on Terrorism is all about containment, then we will focus our efforts on peace activism. We will attempt to wake people up to the greedy imperialism that lies behind these military exercises, and we will attempt to bring to public light the truth of U.S. complicity in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Hopefully, we will succeed in these goals.

However, if it turns out that energy depletion is a serious problem, then we will at best be unprepared. Our economy will collapse, and our technology will fail. We will face massive starvation and upheaval, and sink into a morass from which humankind may never emerge. Or we will emerge from a dieoff of humanity as serfs and slaves to a few elite masters -- not a very pretty picture.

Now if we proceed on the assumption that the War on Terrorism is all about energy depletion, we will still focus our immediate efforts on peace activism. We will still attempt to wake people up to the evils of U.S. policy and the elite behind it, and hopefully we will succeed in these goals. Beyond this, we will begin focusing on the transition to a democratic, egalitarian, stable-state society.

If it turns out that energy depletion is not a serious problem and all of this was really about containment, no damage will have been done. At worst, we will have sacrificed some of our time and effort to become more independent of oil and natural gas. At best, we will have a society that is a little more democratic, a little more egalitarian, and a little more sufficient.

Now, which of these is the better choice?Faced with everything I have presented above, I must ask why containment proponents are so strong in condemning the

oil motive? It would almost seem that they are trying “to control the alternative narrative and keep people distracted.”they are trying “to control the alternative narrative and keep people distracted.”they

[Dale Allen Pfeiffer is a geologist and published author. He can be reached at: elizdale0416@earthlink.netelizdale0416@earthlink.net]elizdale0416@earthlink.net]elizdale0416@earthlink.netelizdale0416@earthlink.net]elizdale0416@earthlink.net

Page -9-

One Foot Off the Cliff

Deployments May Be Too Far Advanced to Stop Iraqi Invasion -- 250,000 U.S. Troops Either Already There or Ready to Go

Possible Battle Strategy: Easy Military Victory

That May Lead to a Global Uprising

by Michael C. Ruppert

[Ed. Note: All research material used in this story was compiled from open source material posted on various Defense Department websites, from major media sources and from other non-classified material. - MCR]

Aug. 21, 2002, 13:00 PDT (FTW) -- It may be too late for President George W. Bush to change his mind on the invasion of Iraq. An analysis of troop deployments in the region shows that the U.S. already has well over 100,000 military personnel in as many as 11 countries around Iraq [see map on page 10]. Additional analysis shows that another 100,000 or more crack assault and support personnel have just completed a major training exercise for a hypothetical conflict that bears a strong resemblance to Iraq. These troops can be ready to fight in the region on 96-hour notice. “Stealth” mobilizations of Reserve and National Guard units, begun after Sept. 11, also indicate that as many as another 150,000 military personnel can be deployed within days or weeks of an initial surprise attack.

News reports from other sources confirm the following report by the Asia Times on Aug. 19. “Since March 12,000 troops have been added to Kuwait (8,000) and Qatar (4,000) and 5,000 Brits to Oman, bringing the April/May total to 62,000. In late June, the Turkish foreign ministry reported heavy air traffic of U.S. military transport planes aimed at increasing the number of U.S. troops in Southern Turkey from 7,000 to 25,000 by the end of July. Also in June, a contingent of 1,700 British Royal Marines were re-deployed from Afghanistan to Kuwait and a 250-man, highly specialized German NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare battalion equipped with “Fuchs” (fox) armored vehicles has been in Kuwait since early this year.

“An additional 2,400 U.S. troops are deployed in Jordan and, according to the Jordanian news agency Petra, are being reinforced by another 4,000 arriving since Aug. 12 at Aqaba for joint exercises with the Jordanian Army. Already, 1,800 U.S. troops (mostly Special Forces) are inside Iraq, at least since the end of March and, in fact, units there were visited two months ago by CIA director George Tenet during a side trip from Israel and Palestine. Between another 2,000 and 3,000 U.S. troops are in semi-permanent deployment in the Negev and Sinai deserts in accordance with old international agreements. On Aug. 9, the Turkish daily Hurriyet reported that 5,000 Turkish troops had entered northern Iraq and taken over the Bamerni airbase north of Mosul. These numbers add up to about 105,000 U.S. and allied troops on bases surrounding and inside Iraq.”

All told, including foreign troops, there are potentially 400,000 military personnel that are either in the theater of operations, ready to go, or deployable on very short notice. There are many other units that have gone into stealth mode and cannot be located. These advance deployments indicate that the Bush Administration likely committed itself to the invasion many months ago.

One military expert thinks that the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein will be a cakewalk. But, as is shown by recent outcries from around the civilized world, the political and economic price might spell the end of U.S world leadership and a particularly nasty economic retaliation against a fragile U.S. economy. As one example Iran, now totally surrounded by U.S.-led forces, announced on Aug. 20 that it was considering dropping the dollar as its currency for oil pricing. If the world follows suit, it will spell the end of dollar hegemony and all that it means to the U.S. economy. On Aug. 20, the Financial Times reported that wealthy Saudi investors had withdrawn as much as $200 billion from U.S. banks.

THE DOOR KICKERS“Millennium 2002,” billed as one of the largest war gaming exercises in recent history, took place in and around California’s

Ft. Irwin from July 24 through Aug. 9. Although the classified war scenario was ostensibly a look at a potential conflict in 2007, the way the exercises were conducted, right down to maps displayed on the Ft. Irwin website, looked remarkably similar to a mock invasion of Iraq. Indeed one of the maps used and displayed on the website, when enlarged, proved to be of the Az Zubayr prison outside of Basra, Iraq.

An estimated 100,000-plus military personnel from all services, some operating from aircraft carriers such as the

Page -10-

Constellation and surrounding Marine, Navy, Air Force and Army installations supported the mock battle. Units on the ground consisted of approximately 13,500 crack Army mechanized infantry, armor, artillery, airborne and Special Operations Command personnel including SEALs, who fought a simulated war in desert camouflage uniforms in searing desert heat. The geographic location of the support bases from which air strikes and resupply missions were flown in California, Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere correspond roughly in geographic distance to the actual positioning of military installations throughout the Middle East that would be used to support a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

That means America’s premier units are acclimatized and have tested all of their equipment, especially the new Stryker Infantry Assault Vehicle, before the invasion and have completed an actual dry run. Recent operational reports, as reported in the New York Times on Aug. 18, state that active duty combat units could be “airlifted and ready for action in 96 hours.”

THE HIDDEN MOBILIZATION OF THE RESERVESAn analysis of Reserve and National Guard call-ups since 9-11 shows that preparations for an Iraqi invasion have been

underway possibly for as long as 10 months by means of so-called “stealth deployments.” Although Defense Department announcements have recently indicated a drop in the total number of reserves mobilized, it is important to note that cutbacks are from “military operational specialties” that are not critical to Iraqi combat operations.

Below is a list of the units identified as having taken part in Millennium 2002, and the Reserve and National Guard units that are likely to participate in the conflict. In conjunction with the number of bases and military deployments already positioned in the Persian Gulf region [see map], it is probable that as many as 250,000 U.S. military personnel are already in the region or are trained, equipped and committed to the invasion of Iraq. This invasion will in all likelihood happen in mid- to late-September and barring miraculous political intercession, certainly before the November elections.

The Bush Administration already has one foot off of the cliff. Although it might be possible to call back the dogs of war, the dogs will be very unhappy if they have to come home without eating. And President Bush will be an impotent political liability.

Page -11-

ARMY REGULAR GROUND UNITS PARTICIPATING IN MILLENNIUM 200282nd Airborne Division101st Air Mobile DivisionSpecial Operations Command, JFK Special Warfare Center- 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment- U.S. Army Special Forces- 75th Ranger Regiment- U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command- U.S. Army III Corps (Armor, Ft. Hood)

- 1st Air Cavalry, Heavy Armored- 21st Cavalry Brigade- 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade- 13th COSCOM Logistics and Support- 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment- 4th Infantry Division

- 3rd Signal Brigade- III Armor Corps Artillery- 3rd Brigade/ 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Assault Teams, Ft. Lewis)

The total number of estimated personnel in these assault forces and their support units is approximately 100,000.Other military elements from all over the country deployed and tested new high-tech battlefield systems and communications

equipment. Confirmed reports indicate that microwave weapons will be deployed during the invasion.This number does not include support and transport units from other services, the aircraft carrier Constellation as reported

by Globalsecurity.org, or air support missions. It is estimated that three additional carrier battle groups will participate in the invasion. Increased air operations activity were confirmed at bases in California, Arizona and Nevada. This conforms with Millennium 2002’s self-reporting on the Ft. Irwin website at http://www.irwin.army.milhttp://www.irwin.army.mil.

RESERVE AND NATIONAL GUARD MOBILIZATIONSListed below are the Reserve and National Guard combat and support units likely to be used in an Iraqi invasion that

have been mobilized since 9-11. These mobilized personnel are for the most part experienced veterans. Various numbers of personnel have been activated from each of these units and they likely represent a core cadre, which in the event of a full mobilization could have the complete units ready for combat in a short period of time. All data is current as of Aug. 7.

AIR FORCE- 37 Airlift Wings (7,493 personnel)- 41 Fighter Wings (9,439 personnel)- 23 Refueling Wings (4,318)- 3 Rescue Group Wings (401 personnel)- 2 Bomb Wings (B1B) (218 personnel)

NAVY- SEAL Teams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 (52 personnel)- Special Boat Squadron -- Team 1 (18 personnel)- Naval Support Activity, Bahrain (53 personnel)- Inshore Boat Units (89 personnel)- Inshore Undersea Warfare Units (113 personnel)- Assault Craft Units (74 personnel)- 4th Marine Division Support (105 personnel)

MARINE CORPS- 23rd Regiment/4th Marine Division (976 personnel)- 25th Regiment/4th Marine Division (1,003 personnel)- 4th Marine Division (49 personnel, most likely headquarters staff)

ARMY- 20th Special Forces Group (941 personnel)- 19th Special Forces Group (711 personnel, plus an undetermined additional number announced in a call-up on Aug. 20)- 131st Armored Regiment -- Alabama (209 personnel)- 180th Field Artillery -- Arizona (125 personnel)

Page -12-

- OpFor (Opposing Force), 11th Armored Cavalry -- California (125 personnel)- 123rd Armor -- Kentucky (159 personnel)- 110th Field Artillery/29th Division -- Maryland (331 personnel)- 104th Armored Regiment -- Pennsylvania (304 personnel)- 103rd Armored Regiment -- Pennsylvania (541 personnel)- 769th Engineer Battalion -- Louisiana (515 personnel)- 201st Engineer Battalion -- Kentucky (300 personnel)- 876th Engineer Battalion -- Pennsylvania (223 personnel)- 246th Field Artillery -- Virginia (165 personnel)- 112th Armor -- Texas (629 personnel)- 145th Field Artillery -- Vermont (206 personnel)- 1st Battalion/213th Air Defense Artillery -- Pennsylvania (201 personnel)

Total for these call-ups: 29,571 personnel.

There has also been a heavy call-up of naval reserve units from the construction battalions and beach units, as well as 31 separate medical units from all services involving 602 personnel.

HOW THE INVASION WILL OCCURRetired Army Special Forces Master Sgt. Stan Goff, who taught military science at West Point, thinks the invasion and

overthrow of Saddam Hussein will be easily accomplished. Iraqi military power is a shadow of what it was in 1991.Goff wrote:“If they go, Seal Team 6 will go too, along with the Army's door-busters. They'll hit key communications, command and

control targets in the city, as the 75th conducts two to three airfield seizures, whereupon they pour in conventionals onto the airheads and push out the perimeters. The set up folks like the 101 (a heliborne outfit), will begin coordinated attacks on light targets, and strongpoint lines of communication. Armor will crawl overland for eventual link-up after the bombers make them a road. The Marines will probably forego beach assaults, with maybe one or two exceptions, and they'll be used to open up non-existent defenses, then pull glorified guard duty for a year at a time. Expect massive air, with massive civilian casualties, as prep. The hi-tech weapons are only toys.

“This will be a walk-through if it happens. The Iraqi forces are not only technologically under-gunned, they are poorly trained and unmotivated, and their doctrine is an anachronism.

“War-gaming here: If I were defending the place, I would stand down the conventionals, let them blend back into the population, and train up 1,000 two-man sniper teams, and deploy them like a "go" game throughout the urban areas. Then arm the masses with light weapons and grenades. Everywhere anyone goes, they stand to be triangulated: single shots, low signature, hard to acquire a target. Single-casualty incidents and a lot of bad nerves. That’s a morale buster that provokes over-reaction, which in turn provokes popular hatred. Slow boil escalation, with the invader tied to expensive fixed installations, where he loses the battlefield initiative. I would decentralize the command structure, and issue broad strategic guidance every month or so through totally non-tech communication. About a year of that and you can spell quagmire with a capital “Q.” There would be no way to ever regain the initiative. But Saddam can't do that.

“There are four Arabs I would not want to be right now: King Fahd, Prince Abdullah, Yasser Arafat, or Hosni Mubarak. All are perceived as U.S. flunkies, and that's not a great thing right now.”

It is foreseeable that Saddam Hussein’s bluster, ego and command style will not permit him to do anything but take the field for a short time and then either be killed or take flight like so many other petty tyrants of recent history. The difference with Saddam is that much of the world might willingly receive him. The nations of Indonesia and Malaysia with the largest Muslim populations in the world are distinct possibilities.

Only a few have seen the potential and horrible repercussions of a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. As the reality of the Hubbert curve and the end of the age of oil start to become unavoidable realities, desperation moves that risk Armageddon and global holocausts of both the military and economic variety will, and must, eventually become commonplace.

It appears as if the cowboys in the White House have made their decision and all of us wait, with baited breath, to see for whom the bells toll.

POSTSCRIPT: As this story goes to press it is important note the publication of a large story in the Washington Post headlined, “Al Q’aeda Presence in Iraq reported.” The story by Bradley Graham opened with the lead, “At least a handful of ranking members of al Qaeda have taken refuge in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday. Their presence would complicate U.S. efforts against the terrorist network’s leadership but also would give the Bush administration another rationale for possible military action against the Iraqi government.”

[Special thanks to an anonymous Vietnam-era veteran of the 10th Special Forces Group for his invaluable research assistance.]

Page -13-

Saudi Arabia: The Sarajevo of the 21st CenturyIs Iraq a Diversion from the Real Invasion

or Will Bush Try to Occupy Both Countries at Once?

Allah’s Last Laughby Michael C. Ruppert

Aug. 21, 2002, 14:00 PDT (FTW) – The global horrors of World War I -- the war to end all wars -- began with the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914. The apocalyptic war of the 21st century may have begun with a $1 trillion lawsuit filed in the United States by 9-11 victim families against Saudi Arabian banks and members of the Saudi royal family. In what may be the opening salvos of a financial and energy apocalypse, the Financial Times reported yesterday that wealthy Saudi investors had begun a run on their U.S. banking deposits that may have taken as much as $200 billion out of U.S. banks. These massive withdrawals -- out of an estimated $750 billion in Saudi U.S. investments -- occurred within days of the Aug. 15 filing of the suit. Ironically, the principal attorneys in the suit are all political insiders and, in one case, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. You might think they would have thought of this beforehand.

There are two basic questions to ask about Saudi Arabia. Why was Saudi Arabia not a focus of U.S. action and serious media attention in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 even though there were so many obvious connections? And why now is Saudi Arabia so prominently a focus of what is apparently government-approved U.S. animosity? One thing is obvious. On the eve of a U.S. invasion of Iraq the deployment of U.S. military personnel in the region is also a convenient placement of resources for what may be a one-two punch to take over a tottering kingdom that owns 25 percent of all the oil on the planet at the same time that Saddam Hussein is removed from power in a country that controls another 11 percent. Together, the two countries -- which have not yet peaked in production capacity -- and which are the only two nations capable of an immediate increase in output possess 36 percent of the world’s known oil.

The Saudi situation is complicated by the fact that much of Saudi Arabia’s wealth is invested in U.S. financial markets and its sudden loss could devastate the U.S. economy. But Bush brinksmanship -- an understatement -- is making possible a scenario where Saudis long-loyal to the U.S. markets cut off their own arm in a coyote-like effort to free themselves from a trap that threatens the stability of both their kingdom and the global economy.

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. Fifteen of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi. There has been an obvious and clear financial trail showing Saudi support for Al Qaeda. In fact, as has recently been noted by French author and former intelligence officer Jean Charles Brisard in his book, “The Forbidden Truth,” the financial support network of Al Qaeda is a virtual cut-and-paste reincarnation of BCCI, a Pakistani bank known for terrorist, drug, and CIA connections in the 1980s. One of BCCI’s former executives, Khaled bin Mafouz, remains the banker for the Saudi royal family today. Both he and Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki Faisal al Saud (removed just before the 9-11 attacks after 25 years of liaison with bin Laden), have been discussed repeatedly, if obliquely, in mainstream and independent press stories since the attacks took place.

After months of strenuous and repeated assertions by the Bush Administration that Saudi Arabia was a key ally in the war on terror and that they were loyal and trusted partners in U.S.-led efforts, someone has suddenly turned on the tap for anti-Saudi propaganda and the mainstream media are eating it up.

On June 20 the Jang group of newspapers in Dubai reported that Al Qaeda networks were active in Saudi Arabia. This followed a June 18 announcement that a group linked to Al Qaeda had been arrested inside the kingdom and charged with planning attacks on Saudi government installations.

On July 18 the BBC reported that Saudi Prince Nayef Bin Sultan Bin Fawwaz Al-Shaalan had been indicted by a Miami court on charges of having smuggled 1,980 kilos of cocaine on his private jet in 1999.

On July 28, Britain’s The Observer released a story that quickly spread around the world. It was headlined, “Britons left in jail amid fears that Saudi Arabia could fall to al-Q’aeda.” The lead paragraphs read, “Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of collapse, fuelling foreign office fears of an extremist takeover of one of the West’s key allies in the war on terror.

“Anti-government demonstrations have swept the desert kingdom in the past months in protest at the pro-American stance of the de facto ruler, Prince Abdullah.

“At the same time, Whitehall officials are concerned that Abdullah could face a palace coup from elements within the royal family sympathetic to al-Q’aeda.

“Saudi sources said the Pentagon had recently sponsored a secret conference to look at options if the royal family fell…”The story later mentioned, “Anti-Abdullah elements within the Saudi government are also thought to have colluded in a

wave of bomb attacks on Western targets by Islamic terrorists.”After finally mentioning the apparently unimportant subject of the headline -- the fact that several Britons had been jailed on

Page -14-

bootlegging charges -- the story concluded by stating that feuding between factions in the Saudi court was going to increase with the death of King Fahd who was unstable in a Swiss hospital.

The story ended by quoting Saudi dissident Dr. Saad al-Fagih who declared, “’There is now an undeclared war between the factions in the Saudi royal family.’”

On the same day a lengthy essay on Saudi Arabia in The Asia Times by Ehsan Ahrari observed, “It is interesting to note that [Prince] Sultan is believed to be a preferred U.S. candidate for the Saudi throne.” Abdullah is the crown prince, not Sultan.

On July 29 Stratfor, a global intelligence reporting and analysis service, reported that a feud was brewing between Saudi Arabia and neighboring Qatar over Qatar’s willingness to openly support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Qatar is nearly sinking under the weight of pre-deployed military equipment and has a brand new state-of-the-art U.S. Air Force Base. [See story this issue.]

On July 30, the suggestions that internecine warfare had erupted in Saudi Arabia were given credence by an Agence France Presse report describing the recent deaths of three Saudi princes in eight days. Prince Fahd bin Turki died of thirst in the desert on July 30. Prince Sultan bin Faisal died in a car crash on July 23, and Prince Ahmed bin Salman died the day before of a heart attack.

On Aug. 1, The World Tribune reported that Saudi Arabia, which has been acquiring long range ballistic missiles had also been, according to reports confirmed by U.S. officials, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan which has been well-documented to have heavy concentrations of Al Qaeda supporters within all parts of its government.

On that same day, Saudi dissident Dr. al-Fagih appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program “Lateline” and offered some startling revelations:

“Prince Abdullah who is supposed to be the next in charge, the next King would not accept to appoint Prince Sultan as Crown Prince and Prince Sultan insists that he should be the next in line for Abdullah to be [king].”

Al-Fagih predicted the imminent death of the ailing King Fahd and noted, “That’s why probably the foreign office have [sic] expected some major thing happening in the next few weeks…

“I mean, Prince Abdullah is in charge of the national guard and Prince Sultan is in charge of the army, and either one will use his own force to fight the other to fight for power. Now they will use all elements of the population, of the society… [including a large portion of the population that supports al-Q’aeda and radical Islamic fundamentalism].

Al-Fagih said that there was a psychological barrier in the country because all information is so thoroughly controlled and the regime maintains the appearance of complete control. Almost all Saudis dislike the corrupt regime for a multitude of differing reasons. But, said the medical doctor who once served with Osama bin Laden in the Afghan war against Soviet occupation, “Once this psychological barrier is broken, either by a dispute of the royal family, or by a financial collapse, you would expect a major act by the people against the regime.”

Al-Fagih also noted that in general the dislike of the Saudi people for the U.S. was intense because of its unremitting support of Israel and also because the U.S. had maintained a military presence on Saudi soil long after the end of the Gulf War.

Just five days later on Aug. 6 the Washington Post reported that a month earlier on July 10, a top Pentagon advisory group had received a briefing from Rand Corp. analyst Laurent Murawiec describing Saudi Arabia as en enemy of the U.S. and threatening seizure of its oil fields and financial assets if it did not stop supporting terrorism. The Pentagon group which received the briefing, the Defense Policy Board, is headed by renowned hawk Richard Perle. Although high-level Bush administration figures like Colin Powell downplayed the briefing’s significance, it received heavy-handed media play for several days. Subsequent reports stated that Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff had “embraced” the report.

On Aug. 7 Saudi Arabia made clear and unequivocal public pronouncements that it would not allow its soil to be used for an invasion of Iraq.

On Aug. 14, Reuters reported that King Fahd, who had just been moved to Spain was in failing health and possibly near death.

On Aug. 15 amidst massive daylong publicity, a 15-count, $1 trillion lawsuit was filed against various Saudi interests for liability in the 9-11 attacks. Included among the defendants were the Saudi Bin Laden Group of companies (previously connected through the Carlyle Group to Bush family finances), three Saudi princes, seven banks, eight Islamic foundations, a number of charities and the government of Sudan.

The three Saudi princes are Turki Faisal al Saud, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz (same as above), and Prince Mohamed al-Faisal.

This new suit eclipsed three earlier suits, largely ignored by the major media, filed by victim families charging various degrees of liability and/or complicity by the U.S. government. The key lawyers in the case have a history of close affiliation with the Republican Party, the Bush family and/or the Council on Foreign Relations. Media coverage of the suits continued through the weekend ending Aug. 18.

What gives?

FOLLOWING THE MONEYThe instability in Saudi Arabia may well be just the end result of internal decay and rot. But the consequences and

implications of Saudi Arabia’s current crisis are far deeper once one examines the financial threat that Saudi chaos might unleash.

Like the United States, the Saudi economy is in tatters. Like the U.S. economy it needs only one thing to keep it afloat

Page -15-

-- cash.The Saudi government rightly fears a quickly successful U.S. invasion of Iraq. A first inevitable consequence would be

serious anti-American protests from the Saudi population. The second inevitable consequence would be an almost immediate increase in Iraqi oil production, which would result in a price reduction that might break the back of OPEC and dramatically reduce oil income. Seeing that the U.S. economy is on the brink of collapse, the Bush Administration, facing congressional elections in November and a potentially disastrous 2004 presidential election, must do whatever it takes to keep itself in power. For this administration, so hugely populated by oil men (and woman), cheap oil is the obvious first choice.

Saudi Arabia seems to have seen this coming for some time. In April, the Saudi government announced that it was considering privatizing parts of Aramco, the Saudi national oil company, and selling off some of Aramco’s operations to Exxon, BP-Amoco, Shell and other major companies. Though little has been disclosed since the early announcements, this move would benefit the Saudis in two big ways.

First, it would give Western companies an equity stake in the stability of the monarchy, making it difficult for the U.S. to consider bombing or embargoing operations owned by Western companies. Secondly, it would generate large amounts of cash to offset declining economic growth, rising unemployment and declining per capita income, according to Stratfor on April 29.

The oil-based Mexican standoff is mirrored by what is effectively a much more successful financial deterrent -- the Saudis ability to wreck the U.S. financial markets should they see their situation become utterly desperate.

OWNING THE AMERICAN DREAMIt is impossible to quantify the exact amount of Saudi holdings in the U.S. economy. But anecdotal evidence is utterly

compelling.The New York Times reported on Aug. 11, “An adviser to the Saudi royal family made a telling point about Saudi elites.

He said an estimated $600 billion to $700 billion in Saudi money was invested outside the kingdom, a vast majority of it in the United States or in United States-related investments.” The BBC has estimated Saudi U.S. investment at $750 billion.

Adnan Khashoggi, perhaps the best-known Saudi billionaire, controls his investments through Ultimate Holdings Ltd. and in Genesis Intermedia, which was reported to have been connected to suspicious stock trades around the time of the Sept. 11 attacks. (No linkage has been made between these trades and the attacks themselves). The rest of his private U.S. holdings are administered through his daughter’s name from offices in Tampa, Fla., not far from where many of the hijackers received flight training at both private and U.S. military installations.

Khashoggi is a longtime financial player, deeply connected to the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s and also to BCCI. But Khashoggi doesn’t even make the Forbes list of the richest people in the world. One Saudi who does is Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, who ranks as the 11th richest man on the planet with an estimated net worth of $20 billion.

Some of Alwaleed’s holdings and recent acquisitions include:- The single largest shareholder in Citigroup, the teetering U.S. financial giant, which is reported to have a derivatives

bubble of more than $12 trillion and has reportedly sought recent emergency assistance from the Federal Reserve. On July 18 Alwaleed made an additional $500 million purchase of Citigroup stock, raising his estimated shareholding to $10 billion.

- Alwaleed also owns, according to an Aug. 9 story in The Guardian, three percent of the total shares of Newscorp (Fox), making him the second-largest shareholder behind Rupert Murdoch.

- Alwaleed’s other significant holdings include Apple Computer, Priceline, The Four Seasons Hotels, Planet Hollywood, Saks and Euro Disney.

- Alwaleed also sits on the board of directors of the infamous (post-9-11) Carlyle Group.

Alwaleed alone is in a position to pull the plug on the U.S. economy. But, of course, he would cost himself billions to do it and this is not a likely scenario because he has long been a pro-democratic U.S. supporter. The remaining investments of the Saudi family, taken as a whole, would undoubtedly paint an even grimmer risk assessment. All of this assumes, of course, the stability of the Saudi monarchy -- an apparent prerequisite for the preservation of their continued financial empire, the stability of the U.S. economy making it the most profitable place for Saudi investment, and the absence of a major and protracted regional conflict. But if the U.S. economy fails?...

The Bush Administration’s unilateral and illegal commitment to an Iraqi invasion brings all three essentials into question.The Aug. 20 report from the Financial Times suggests that the Saudis are, at minimum, firing a clear warning shot across

the bow of the "USS Bush."

ALLAH’S LAST LAUGHIn his appearance on Australian television Dr. al-Fagih discussed the likelihood of a Balkanization of Saudi Arabia by

dividing the kingdom into three separate states and separating the eastern oil provinces from the holy sites in the west. Such a shot-term solution might delay what seems to be an inevitable final conflict.

But there is another telling factor that has not been discussed in the major media.There are signs that major financial power houses are looking into gold hedges, especially mining and actual possession of

gold in anticipation of a large gold “bust-out.” The head of the California Personnel Employee Retirement System (CALPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, recently announced his resignation to go into the gold sector of the financial markets.

Recent reports starting in 1998 indicate that Saudi Arabia contains enormous quantities of gold. A 1997 Saudi embassy press announcement revealed 800 locations where gold had been discovered. A Nov. 8 report from Ohio State University, based upon new Global Imaging System technologies, confirmed “2,100 known occurrences of gold, silver, copper, and other metals in the western third of the Saudi peninsula.” Saudi Arabia appears to be sitting atop one of the largest gold stores on the planet.

But there is something else in the western third of the country -- the two holiest cities in all of Islam, Mecca and Medina. And a gold bust-out might well signal the end of the U.S. dollar’s reign as the dominant currency in world commerce -- the means by which the U.S. has policed its global financial empire. And Iran has just signaled that it is considering pricing its oil in euros.

Yet the Bush Administration seems willing to risk everything for a roll of the dice in Iraq and a lawsuit in New York -- moves it may have already committed itself to take and cannot reverse. And still the American people try to ignore the fact that the administration knew about, and could have prevented, the attacks of Sept. 11.

Page -16-

9-11 Lawsuits: Saudis, Airlines, Bush Face Litigationby Joe Taglieri, FTW StaffFTW StaffFTW

Aug. 27, 2002, 12:00 PDT (FTW) -- Many surviving family members of those who died Sept. 11 are opting to file lawsuits to obtain compensation for the deaths of their loved ones.

Most recently, a $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of more than 500 family members of 9-11 victims was filed Aug. 15 in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. The 259-page complaint names 100 defendants, including members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family, the Republic of Sudan, seven Saudi and Sudanese international banks, Islamic charities, Saudi government officials, individual Saudi financiers, and Osama bin Laden. The Saudi royals named are Prince Mohammad al-Faisal, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki al-Faisal.

``It’s not the money. We want to do something to get at these people. There’s nothing else we can do,’’ said Irene Spina, as quoted by the Associated Press. Spina’s daughter, Lisa L. Trerotola, died in the World Trade Center.

Referring to Saudi Arabia, lead attorney Ronald Motley was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “That kingdom sponsors terrorism. This is an insidious group of people.”

Motley heads a hefty team of lawyers, all with significant experience litigating cases pertaining to terrorism or international law, according to a statement on the website of Motley’s South Carolina law firm. Allan Gerson, who represented families of those killed in the crash of Pan Am 103 and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is also part of the plaintiffs’ legal team. Gerson and Motley are joined by several other attorneys, including John D’Amato, Guy Molinari, who is a former Republican congressman from New York City’s Staten Island, and the Pennsylvania firm Mellon, Webster & Shelly.

The 15-count complaint charges the defendants with wrongful death, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, aiding and abetting terrorists, conspiracy, and racketeering.

The day the suit was filed, Motley stated publicly that damages would come primarily from assets held by the defendants in the U.S. The following week some $200 billion of Saudi assets were withdrawn from the U.S. economy.

Another batch of federal lawsuits, 38 in total, have been or soon will be filed on behalf of victims’ family members by attorneys Mary Schiavo and John Greaves of the Los Angeles firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo. Greaves and Schiavo’s first court filings were in January.

These suits target United and American airlines as well as the security firms Huntleigh USA Corp. and Argenbright Security Inc. The security firms were contracted by the airlines at the airports where the four doomed flights originated on Sept. 11. The companies are charged with negligence, reckless conduct, and conscious disregard for rights and safety.

The suits are presently on hold until at least late-September, according to Greaves. This is because U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York issued an order in July placing the case’s discovery phase on hold. This was in response to a request from the Justice Department to do so.

Discovery will remain on hold until “the Department of Justice and I work out a way to protect what’s known as Security Sensitive Information (SSI),” said Greaves. “That’s the dilemma. We need that evidence to prove our case, but at the same time, it’s protected from public disclosure by the federal aviation regulations.”

Greaves, a former airline pilot, said he is in the process of drafting a proposed protective order regarding SSI “which may or may not be accepted by the Justice Department.” Schiavo and Greaves’ next scheduled meeting with Justice Department attorneys is Sept. 20.

Schiavo was quoted by the American Free Press as saying, “the purpose of protecting information should be in the inter-ests of defending national security. SSI should not be used as a shield to hide FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and TSA [Transportation Security Administration] negligence and incompetence.”

Schiavo, a former Transportation Department inspector general and aviation expert, has also been an outspoken critic

Page -17-

of the government’s hastily established September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and the aviation security legislation signed into law late last year by President Bush. She claims the fund unfairly limits family members’ rights towards obtaining compensation.

“In the wake of Sept. 11, Congress retroactively changed the law to protect air carriers, aircraft manufacturers, airport sponsors, or persons with a property interest in the World Trade Center from any liability other than the limits of their liability coverage,” Schiavo said in a speech delivered Sept. 29 before a conference of the National Air Disaster Alliance and Foundation. Text of the speech is available through her firm’s website and was updated Dec. 7 to reflect changes in the law as of Nov. 19.

For those who want answers as to what actually led to these air disasters and the deaths of their loved ones, the victim compensation fund falls severely short, claim Schiavo and Greaves.

“The biggest problem with the fund is that no questions may be asked as to how this could have happened,” said Greaves. “Plus, life insurance and other collateral sources of compensation are deducted from the award, but fault need not be proven. You get paid now, but less than the potential of a lawsuit.”

“Our clients want accountability. They can’t do that if they simply take a ‘no fault’ payment from the fund,” Schiavo stated in a press release. “[These families are] suing because they want answers, and they want change.”

It is important to note the distinction between the Schaivo suits and the $1 trillion suit filed against Saudi and Islamic defendants. Plaintiffs who have accepted compensation from the federal victim fund are not precluded from taking part in the Saudi suit, however, those compensated by the fund may not sue the airlines, security companies or U.S. government entities, according to the fund’s guidelines.

Greaves maintains his suits will take several years to litigate. He said possible future named defendants include the port authorities of Boston and New York/New Jersey, which are the government agencies that operate the airports where the doomed flights originated.

These entities were not named in the initial court filings because proper legal procedure dictates that plaintiffs must first file an “administrative claim,” which is a formal complaint made to an administrative government agency outlining a party’s intended legal action.

Reconstructing just what exactly happened on Sept. 11 is the primary challenge in successfully litigating these suits for his clients, Greaves said. “We want to know how these hijackers got into these terminals with those weapons and got on board these aircraft with those weapons,” he said. “They had weapons, that’s clear. We don’t know exactly what weapons they had.

“The airlines take the position that the only weapons they had were box cutters and knives with blades less than four inches, which they say is not covered by the regulations pertaining to dangerous and deadly weapons,” Greaves continued. “I don’t agree. We’ve got evidence that a knife with a blade of less than four inches is the weapon of choice of hijackers. And they’re waving that? That’s okay, you can come on board with that?”

Ellen Mariani, whose husband, Neil, died when United Airlines Flight 175 hit the World Trade Center’s South Tower, was the first family member to file suit on Dec. 20. At that time she was represented by Chicago-based Nolan Law Group but is now represented by Schiavo and Greaves.

“I chose the lawsuit knowing I had 90 days to turn back to the fund,” Mariani wrote in a July statement to Judge Hellerstein’s court. “I did not turn back because the truth would never be told...When I ask why Sept. 11 had to happen, my family and I deserve an answer that may become clear during a full, fair and complete investigation.”

In addition to the above mentioned legal actions, San Francisco-based attorney Stanley G. Hilton has filed a class-action federal lawsuit that names President Bush and members of his Cabinet as defendants. The named Cabinet members include Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

“I hope [the lawsuit] will expose the fact that there are numbers of people in the government, including Bush and his top assistants, who wanted this to happen,” Hilton was quoted as saying by the San Francisco Examiner in June.

Hilton, a former aide to Bob Dole when he served in the U.S. Senate, told the Examiner he represents the families of 14 victims, and 400 plaintiffs are involved nationwide. The suit seeks $7 billion in damages and was filed June 3 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Hilton could not be reached for comment, so the case’s present status since its June filing is not known at this time. However, court documents show a “Case Management Conference…via telephone” is scheduled for Sept. 25.

The crux of this suit hinge’s on Hilton’s allegation that Bush allowed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to happen for political gain. According to the Examiner Hilton, who claims to have sources within the U.S. intelligence community, stated the Bush Administration ignored intelligence information warning of the impending attacks and refused to round up suspected terrorists known to the FBI and other intelligence agencies before 9-11.

Also according to the Examiner, Hilton claimed the Bush Administration benefited from installing an Afghan puppet regime friendly to U.S. oil interests.

Page -18-

AnalysisAnalysis

BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE

Bush Persistently Hawkish as Republicans,U.S. Allies Criticize Plans for Iraqi Invasion

by Greta Knutzen, FTW Staff WriterFTW Staff WriterFTW

Aug. 27, 2002, 12:00 PDT (FTW) -- The Bush Administration’s unilateral, illegal commitment to an Iraqi invasion has little to do with the prosecution of the “War on Terror,” critics say, and everything to do with politics and a looming global oil shortage.

“[Bush’s insistence on the ouster of Saddam] is not about the security of the United States…This is about domestic American politics,” former UNSCOM weapons inspector Scott Ritter was quoted as saying in a July 24 report from Truthout.com. “The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation…It is a war that’s going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America…”

Despite significant domestic and immense international opposition to an U.S. invastion of Iraq, the Bush camp has not altered its course or tempered its rhetoric toward war. Instead, the U.S. has committed massive resources and deployed more than 100,000 troops to the Middle East theatre.

"The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the [Iraq] region for ground combat operations by mid-October," Ritter told William Pitt Rivers of Truthout.com."…When you deploy that much military power forward -- disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money -- it is very difficult to pull them back without using them. You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October, you better expect war in October."

The August newsletter from the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, as well as FTW’s research [see story this issue], reiterates Ritter’s position: “The U.S. al-Udeid airbase in Qatar is one of a handful of bases in the Persian Gulf region where extensive work is being done in advance of military operations against Iraq… [T]he intelligence and clandestine operations war against Iraq is already ongoing. Information war is part of that package. Statements about U.S. war plans, attack schedules, or methods must be seen in the context of the necessary propaganda, cover, and deception operations. Barring an act of God, the war’s result -- the overthrow of Saddam, at the very minimum -- are foregone conclusions.”

The Bush Administration represents a small, but powerful Republican clique populated by military hawks and oilmen. Their commitment to overthrowing the Iraqi regime has little to do with terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the current Iraqi government is an obstacle to the imposition of American interests in the world’s main oil-producing region. The only outstanding issue on the agenda is how best to justify such a patently illegal invasion.

This is evidenced by the administration’s unwillingness or incapability to answer sensible and reasonable questions on the subject, much to the consternation and frustration of potential international allies. In recent months, the Bush Administration has employed many strategies in an effort to drum up support for a war in Iraq. But none have achieved the magic formula of generating support for the administration’s war, agitating many potential allies.

In a recent interview with Fox News, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued America cannot afford to wait for proof that Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction, comparing this present prelude to war to the “prelude to World War II,” when the Allies appeased Hitler instead of standing up to him.

“The people who argue [against invading Iraq] have to ask themselves how they're going to feel at that point where another event occurs and it's not a conventional event, but it's an unconventional event,” said Rumsfeld. “And ask themselves the question, was it right to have wanted additional evidence or additional time, or another U.N. resolution? I mean, these things are hard to judge. And I'm not the one to answer them. They're to be answered by society. They're to be answered by time and history. They're to be answered by presidents. I can only help elevate the discussion so it's looked at in a rational way.”

But as Saddam appeared willing to renegotiate for the return of weapons inspectors, the administration upped the ante and demanded a regime change on moral grounds. This approach made the search for allies quite difficult. It negated the option of arriving at a peaceful solution through diplomacy and ruled out the prospect of reinstating weapons inspectors -- the favored strategy of most potential allies. Increasingly, the consensus among critics of the pending invasion is that Saddam is only a threat if the U.S. attacks him.

So far, Israel is the only nation that has come out in support of a war in Iraq. Traditionally steadfast U.S. allies such as Britain have registered strong opposition. Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair has faced immense opposition from within his government and from the population to the idea of Britain’s involvement in an invasion. Recent efforts to drum up support from

Page -19-

(continued from page 1, No Way Out)Like those who still debate the arcane details of the JFK assassination, some 39 years later -- having never corrected

the crimes that were committed then -- none of these efforts will have the slightest impact on a brutal agenda being waged to control the last remaining oil reserves on the planet, an agenda that is leading directly to a genocide of Islamic peoples all over the world, and perhaps into Armageddon itself.

Some will cheer foolhardily because the ultra-secret court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) has just embarrassed John Ashcroft, our demented attorney general, by releasing a decision showing that the FBI and the Justice Department have provided false and inaccurate information to the court to obtain warrants in criminal cases -- a function that court was never intended to fulfill. They will whistle in the dark and pat themselves on the back as a portion of the USA Patriot Act has been ruled unconstitutional in a lower court and somehow forget that most of the entire act, which was never read by members of Congress before they passed it, is unconstitutional anyway. They will forget who controls the highest court where Ashcroft will now appeal.

They will take comfort in their immature beliefs that a champion will arise to save them and they will, as so many who

allies reveal the extent of the ignorance and arrogance of present U.S. foreign policy.U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was recently despatched to Britain to present the “powerful moral case”

for deposing Saddam Hussein. Echoing Rumsfeld, Rice’s brief was to draw an analogy between Saddam and Hitler. “History is littered with cases of inaction that led to very grave consequences for the world,” Rice informed listeners on BBC radio. “We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who end up being a tremendous global threat and killing thousands, and indeed millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks? We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing.” Rice’s statements did not go over well and met with near unanimous objections from the British listening audience.

The Times of India reported the British response. Tony Lloyd, Blair’s former junior foreign office minister, condemned Rice’s comments as “very much like the kind of rhetoric we sometimes do hear from fairly tin pot regimes around the world where the agenda isn’t to convince the outside world but to make sure the public at home believes the regime.”

Gerald Kaufman, another former minister and senior member of Blair’s governing Labor Party, warned of “substantial resistance” in England’s parliament if Blair follows into war “the most intellectually backward American president of my lifetime.”

In the U.S. in recent weeks, Republican heavyweights have entered the debate urging restraint. Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf have come out against the present administration’s approach, and for good reason. They seem to recognize that an invasion will characterize the U.S. as an imperialist occupying force, thus alienating and isolating the U.S. within the international community.

Eagleburger, secretary of state under President Bush’s father, told ABC News on Aug. 15 that action against Iraq would not be “legitimate policy at this stage, unless the president demonstrates to all of us that Saddam has his finger on a nuclear, biological and chemical trigger, and he’s about to use it.”

Schwarzkopf warned that the U.S. should not “go it alone” and said the success of Operation Desert Storm was based almost entirely on the existence of a broad international coalition.

On Aug. 15 Brent Scowcroft, who has advised many Republican presidents including the current president’s father, appealed to President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq and warned of the consequences of an attack on Iraq in the Wall Street Journal. He wrote, “Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East.”

Scowcroft also argued an attack on Baghdad would alienate the Arab world and would end much of the cooperation Washington has received in its current battle against Al Qaeda. “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global terrorist campaign we have undertaken,” wrote Scowcroft.

Henry Kissinger waded into the debate, urging caution and reminding the administration that there is no legal precedent for its war. “America’s special responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the world, is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power -- indeed, that strives to translate power into cooperation,” Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post. Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust America.”

This isn’t to say that we can trust Kissinger’s comments. After all, this is a man who has had his fingers in every stinky pie created in recent history. Indeed, judging from a statement he made at a 1991 Bilderberger conference in Evians, France, an isolated and exhausted America might be precisely what Kissinger desires.

“Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful,” Kissinger told the Bilderbergers, an international group made up of political and financial elites. “This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence…The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World government.”

In many ways Bush has achieved a fait accompli, as he is in a position to start this war before anyone can remove him from office. If he plays his hand, the world will have little choice but to follow his lead off the cliff.

Page -20-

have come before them, ignore, deny and insult the sacrifices and lessons of so many people who have fought against this criminal tyranny only to be defeated, worn out or even killed. Here, I refer to all of the Americans who spent every molecule of soul, money, physical and emotional strength they had in the cases of the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK; Vietnam-era POWs; Agent Orange; the Contra War; CIA drug trafficking; the train deaths in Arkansas; the Savings and Loan scandals; Iraqgate; Gulf War Syndrome; the Drug War; Waco; Oklahoma City; 109 mysterious suicides in the military during the 1980s and ‘90s; TWA 800; and a dozen other cases. Has anyone noticed that very few of these potential teachers have shown up on the front lines since 9-11?

I have.These people know that no one cares to listen to their lessons in the same way that each of them entered into their own

struggles -- believing that their case would be different, that something would work, that right and truth must certainly prevail in their fantastic and naïve belief in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

In the meantime:Suits have been filed by groups of victims’ families against the government or the airlines asking legitimate questions about

what happened on 9-11. These suits will fail completely as the government has already intervened to control what records are released in court. Certain members of the classes will be approached quietly and offered payoffs of one kind or another to fragment unity, and the lawyers will likely be compromised or worn out. A possibility exists that one suit was filed by a lawyer posing as a friend of the victims who will ultimately sabotage the case and the victim’s hopes with it. That happened before with the Christic Institute in the 1980s. Those who go along with the government will be used and may get something. Those who hold out will be worn down, exhausted, intimidated and left with nothing.

Even while Congress is in recess, the FBI has stepped up a probe of certain members of the Senate to find out who dared to leak to the American people the damning fact that the National Security Agency had intercepted warnings on Sept. 10 that the attack was going to occur the next day. Ashcroft’s G-Men have moved to make Senators and their staffs hand over calendars, phone records and other information that should -- by right -- be privileged information under the separation of powers. Voluntary compliance by Senate leaders like Daniel Graham, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, only adds to the covert and overt intimidation of Congress that has taken place since 9-11.

Two members of Congress, Democrat Cynthia McKinney and Republican Bob Barr, who offered open criticism of various parts of the administration’s illegal activities, have been booted out of the House in a very well planned and executed conspiracy. As different as night and day politically, the two had one thing in common -- they dared to criticize or question the administration’s actions in the wake of 9-11. They will forever remain an object lesson to any members who would oppose Caesar.

The administration has already deployed and committed more than 100,000 combat troops in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, which will certainly result in tens of thousands of civilian casualties. That invasion may find it convenient for the U.S. to also occupy our newest declared (sort of) enemy, Saudi Arabia. Together, those two countries own 36 percent of all the known oil on the planet.

It has been decided that President Bush need not seek congressional approval before launching the invasion.From the start FTW has been right, and we continue to be proven right, about our analysis of what led up to 9-11, and FTW has been right, and we continue to be proven right, about our analysis of what led up to 9-11, and FTW

especially about the fact that the world stands at the brink of a global event which may perhaps be the most significant event in human history. The world is running out of oil. And oil is more than what you put in your car. It is the ability to do work and, most importantly, to eat. To quote Colin Campbell, Ph.D., “Mankind is not going to become extinct. But the subspecies, ‘petroleum man,’ is most certainly going to become extinct very soon.”

When the Iraqi invasion takes place the U.S. government may have the benefit of U.N. or international support, perhaps as a result of secret documents conveniently obtained from the Iraqi embassy in Berlin during a recent temporary occupation by an unheard-of dissident group. Those documents will show Iraqi government connections to many of the 9-11 hijackers who lived in Germany before the attacks. It makes no difference whether the documents are real or not. Such tactics have been used before, for example, in the 1982 “liberation” of the Polish embassy in Bern, Switzerland.

What will be given to European governments and to the American people is a fragile pretext to sanction something that is going to happen anyway. At that moment, everything that America once represented to the world as good will be lost and the U.S. will be, and in some cases already is, viewed as nothing more than a new Roman Empire -- naked in its power, unabashed in its greed, and brutal in the imposition of its wishes. We will have reached that unique common denominator which has spelled the decline and fall of every totalitarian empire in human history -- might makes right.

And most of the American people, with their bankrupt and corrupt economy, will welcome cheap oil, while it lasts, and they will engage in a multitude of psychological and sickening rationales that will, in the end, amount to nothing more than saying, “I don’t care how many women and children you kill. Just let me keep my standard of living.”

If this is the best that the human race has to offer, then perhaps we need an apocalypse. I, for one, am ashamed of my government and most of my fellow citizens. One year after 9-11 the only ones who really got it right are the recent demonstrators in Portland, Ore. who took peacefully to the streets against George W. Bush on Aug. 23, only to be spayed with pepper spray and shot with rubber bullets. And I’m not sure that even they understand what is at stake yet.

Michael C. RuppertFTW Publisher/EditorFTW Publisher/EditorFTW